Jonsey wrote: John, Merry Christmas (God forbid, I should say Happy Holidays or Sarah P might have a heart attack). In your article, you forgot one thing: Paul Krugman won a Nobel prize for economics and you didn't. He is one smart gentleman. Do have a glorious Christmas and may your heart be softened may you speak of and about the President. Happy Christmas Eve. Maybe I'll say a prayer for you at Midnight Mass. – Who Made Krugman the Expert? Cronies Did

Dear Comrade Jones,

I don’t forget that Krugman has a Nobel prize. I discount the award to present value:

The sum of which equals BS.

You’re talking about the same anti-Semites who only awarded only ONE Nobel prize to Albert Einstein the greatest physicist ever; who gave Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore a Nobel prize and... a Nobel prize to Barack Obama?

Come on. Explain to me why Obama deserved a Nobel prize?

I still haven’t heard a credible explanation about how he earned that prize.

It seems more like he got one for making a cameo appearance as a black man in the government of the United States. Liberals have no shame that way.

If you told me he got an Academy award for best supporting actor, I’d believe it. But Nobel prize? Come on.

The Nobel prize thus has no meaning for me.

So, if you want to remind people that Krugman has a Nobel then go ahead.

This is what I know: Despite following Krugman’s recipe for economic success – more money, more money, more money—Obama’s produced an economy that is sending corporate profits up and job creation down.

There has never, ever been more money than there is today. Ever. The rate at which money travels through the system has never, ever been as slow. Ever.

Both the money supply and the money velocity is something that can be helped or hurt by government policy.

And despite this unprecedented money supply, regular folks aren’t benefiting.Rather the government is benefiting big time. Being located near enough to D.C. to know how much the city has swelled since the 1970s, it should be obvious to you who has benefited the most from increased government spending.

Assuming our GDP is somewhere around $16.5 trillion this year, government spending-to-GDP will come out at about 39 percent of GDP. From 1938 through 1944, the height of the New Deal AND the war effort, federal government spending was only 26.5 percent of GDP.

And what do we have for it?

“As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017,” writes Obama’s friends at FactCheck.org, “which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office…The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.”

According to a report by Intrest.com, there is only one major city where the average household income is sufficient to buy a new car.

Bingo!

You guessed it: Washington, DC.

“According to the 2013 Car Affordability Study by Interest.com,” says CNBC via Yahoo Finance, “only in Washington could the typical household swing the payments, the median income there running $86,680 a year. At the other extreme, Tampa, Fla., was at the bottom of the 25 large cities included in the study, with a median household income of $43,832.”

Only the countries of Lichtenstein and Qatar enjoy higher per capita income than DC’s median income of $86,680 a year.

Thank goodness. All this time, I thought that the runaway federal spending was just fueling a sense of entitlement, privilege and contempt for us commoners amongst the people who run our government.

So whatever else Krugman knows about, he doesn’t know nothing about how an actual economy works.

Even he admits as much, although he doesn’t even realize it:

“On both the healthcare and inflation fronts,” Krugman wrote in early December “what you have to conclude is that there are a large number of people who find reality — the reality that governments are actually pretty good at providing health insurance, that fiat money can be a useful tool of economic management rather than the road to socialist disaster — just unacceptable. I think that in both cases it has to do with the underlying desire to see market outcomes as moral imperatives.”

If that’s the kind of result that wins you a Nobel prize, then I would discourage Nobel prizes.

I see it as the economic equivalent of peeing in the well from which you drink.

That said: I wouldn’t worry about Sarah Palin if I were you. She seems to be doing OK, without interfering at all in your life.

When you’re at church you can thank Jesus for being the reason for the season, and while you’re at it you can explain to him why you tell people happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

And since you’re a hypocritical Catholic, who thinks that he can preach to me about how Jesus was a socialist, let me tell you that I ALWAYS pray for you.

Yeah, I have that effect on some people and certain breeds of dogs. I think it’s the bacon flavored toothpaste and cologne I wear.

Engineer wrote: Of all the quotes jesus, the savior, made, "Loving my neighbor as my self" poses the greatest difficulty. My "neighbors" are atheists, communists, muslims, pagans...the list goes on. None of the above mentioned groups desire to live in peace with me. Many, if not most, would enslave or tax or kill me without a moments hesitation. The Pope is like a "kept" woman, living in an Ivory tower. He is totally insulated from the realities of existance in this world. Jesus commanded [us] to "turn the other cheek". The purpose of which, I believe, is to prevent us from becoming too attached to this world. –

Dear Engineer,

When I wrote to the Pope, it wasn’t out of any disrespect for his office, or a belief that he lives in an Ivory Tower. I’m a firm Catholic, Roman or otherwise.

We just have a disagreement about the best way to accomplish the goal of taking care of the greatest numbers of people.

I do not believe that capitalism is incompatible with charity. Nor do I think that capitalists and workers should see each other as the enemy. I think that in a true capitalist system, the workers, the customers and the shareholders all have to get rewarded in order for the system to survive.

Today, we live in an era where automation has allowed men to be freed from more mundane tasks. That gives us the ability to IMAGINE which is one of the things that free men do best.

We live in an age when people are better educated, less parochial, and have more choices.

My gripe is that the system the Pope seems to support is it is contrary to freedom. God gave us free will and lets us exercise it.

What is a government to demand more than that from it citizens?

If it’s good enough for God, it should be good enough for D.C.

Forcing people to work for the welfare of others isn’t the same as working to take care of others.

No, I don’t confuse the two. It’s just that when liberals write about these issues, they define the rich as anyone making more than $250,000 or more per year.

That’s because personal income is the single most important number for tax collectors. One reason why we have the income tax is because the government need to have a reliable source of it’s own income.

Imagine if we only taxed capital gains for example. What would happen to the government revenues if Wall Street had several years in a row of poor returns?

Income is a more reliable stream than other ways of taxing. That’s why governments LOVE income tax.

On the other hand, we have 300 years of history here in the United States that provides many working examples of an alternative to Barack Obama’s race-baiting, class-warfare, divide the sexes, spend money, spy, spy spy, coerce, control and manipulate politico-economic agenda.

Plus, I find it odd that someone who is a' fightin’ for the workingman would take a posed picture on a yacht, in a life jacket.

I have a rule I follow in life: You never, ever, ever miss the opportunity to make fun of people in life jackets.

V/r = Very Respectfully. It’s how an enlisted addresses superiors in correspondence.

Panton wrote: Ransom you imbecilic POS how dare you talk about the Purple Heart in a joking manner. How would you like to be confined to a wheelchair for over 40 years because you served your country patriotically. Of course your one of those idiots that cowers to your idol draft-dodger Ted Nugent. I said you are a POS, but better stuff gets flushed down my toilet than the likes of you. MORON!!— Ransom's Predictions for 2014

Dear Panton,

I’m not making fun of the Purple Heart. I’m making fun of Sec. John Kerry, whose claims of heroism are questioned by some-- I think with good reason.

There is no question that John Kerry was: 1) wounded three time and 2) never missed any duty as a result and 3) left combat duty after four months due to his three Purple Hearts. I understand that everyone was getting Purple Hearts as an early way out of combat duty. But then don’t campaign for president on it and salute the flag on stage saying, “reporting for duty” when nominated for president.

In my experience REAL heroes are reluctant to talk about their exploits.

Plus, Kerry was a foreign service brat, with acute political ambitions. He didn’t just end up Secretary of State by accident.

If his service and subsequent anti-war activities weren’t staged, then he manufactured a reasonably good facsimile of the young man on the make politically.

First, there will be little banning from me. I like having liberal dissenters.

But Goldi needs to stay on topic and stop writing comments that read like haikus.

Actually, haiku is more intelligible most of the time.

Ken6565 wrote: John, while the Catholic Church has indeed been front and center in the fight against abortion, Catholic laity have been, on the whole, less pro-life than evangelical and confessional Protestants. -- Merry Christmas, Comrades

Dear Comrade Ken,

I was defending the institution of the Church, not the parishioners.

The laity as you observe is a dicier proposition.

In 2012 Obama got 50 percent of the Catholic vote, while Romney got 48 percent. That’s not an overwhelming total. It actually makes me feel pretty good about the odds of getting back a majority of Catholics.

In 2004, Bush got 52 percent of the vote to John Kerry’s 47 percent. Kerry by the way is Catholic.

So if there is some secret Catholic handshake, John Kerry didn’t know about it. And Obama doesn’t have a lock on it.

One problem that outsiders seem to have is in understanding that Catholics are diverse voting block. There is no solid Catholic vote. It’s up for grabs.

But as the largest, single, religious voting block- with stated values more on the conservative side than liberal- it’s a block worth working.

I care because the difference between conservatives winning and losing, the difference between all men are created equal and some are more equal than others, the difference between plenty for all or poverty for the many, is in showing minority voters that the policies on the other side are crafted to enslave them, not liberate them.